Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    So did Diemschutz with Stride.

    Davis could have killed Chapman earlier and returned to ‘discover’ the body.

    Robert Paul could have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘discover’ her or to hope that someone else would.

    McCarthy might have had the proven opportunity to kill Kelly.

    Maybe. Possibly. Who knows?
    Yes, Diemschutz had proven opportunity. And that means that we MUST research him. When we do, nothing pops up. And Mortimer more or less tells us that he could not have been the killer. Weighed together, very little points to him.

    The rest of your post is crap.

    Proven opportunity is something that we can never take lightly on. That Davis COULD have returned does not mean that he had proven opportunity. Thatīs just useless poppycock. All the "might have" opportunity matters are the exact same.

    Lechmere was there, and the ony person to give him an alibi is himself. If you give that some hard afterthought, you may see what I am saying.

    Then again, you may equally return and say "What about Queen Elizabeth? She may have had opportunity, she was in London!"

    Make your choice, Herlock.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      "So you are saying that once we know that a person who was found alone close by a murder victim..."

      As I've said before, the use of "found" implies "found out" or "caught", and "close by" implies a greater proximity than the evidence permits.

      All we can safely say is that he was seen in the road, and called Paul's attention to himself and something lying on the pavement. Cross was not "found" by Paul, therefore; if anything, it was the other way round.
      Poppycock. Lechmere was there, and he has no alibi other the one he gives himself. Ergo, he may have killed her, he had proven opportunity.

      That, my semantically acrobatic friend, is ALL that matters. All, alles, tout, tutti.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 06-01-2018, 12:50 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        OK-hows this-he was seen near the body of a murder victim before he tried to raise any kind of alarm, the only instance of this happening in the whole series. i do find it odd-just at that moment.
        Donīt encourage him, Abby.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
          This was debated before? Lechmere had oppurtunity to kill Nichols,we do not know what he was doing 20-30 sec or a minute or more before Paul arrived.But where was the knife,the police searched Bucks Row and Paul accompanied Lechmere all the way to Mizen.But as the first murder in the series and also in regards to the knife,Lechmere was not "processed" correctly as a witness like Lawende - Major Smith was trying to test his honesty/sharpness, Millers Court - nobody leaves until they give a full statement,Barnett - 4 hour interrogation and frisked.Then we would have known if Lechmere was another Prater or Lewis or the murderer. Not Lechmere's fault don't you think?

          -
          Yes, where, oh where, was the knife?

          On him, Varq.

          And no, it was not Lechmereīs fault that he was not scrutinized the way he should have been. It rarely lies on the culprits to disclose themselves, that is the task of the police.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            It would be good to get back to the general topic of the thread.

            Favourite suspect/s, anyone?
            Yes, Lechmere.

            Comment


            • Victoria. Not Elizabeth. I got it wrong in post 211. A royal mistake...

              Comment


              • "Please donīt be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

                Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

                Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

                You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere."

                But Fish, I thought you were the one who was arguing that Crossmere was never seriously questioned or suspected by the police. What a turnaround!

                "Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere?"

                Indeed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                  "Please donīt be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

                  Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

                  Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

                  You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere."

                  But Fish, I thought you were the one who was arguing that Crossmere was never seriously questioned or suspected by the police. What a turnaround!

                  "Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere?"

                  Indeed.
                  Is it as warm over there as it is here? If so, the heat may have gotten the better of you, Robert. There seems to be a turnaround - in your head.

                  I recommend a hat, something cool to drink and a place in the shade.

                  But then again, you have already placed yourself there, have you not. And wisely so!

                  I stand firmly by how I think Lechmere was never questioned in the capacity of a suspect (see post 214, for example). But I fear that does not change how the geographical implications are of the utmost importance - contrary to what Herlock thinks. To him, they are of no importance at all.

                  How about you, Robert? Do you think the police are wise to research such things, or do you agree with Herlock that they are blaha, blaha and uninteresting? That we need not worry about such things and that pointing to a geographical connection does not influence a case against a suspect? Which is it?

                  Now, go get that hat!

                  PS. Iīm glad to hear that you agree that Herlock looses out on the logic side when he hears the name Lechmere!
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 06-01-2018, 02:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                    Ah, but we have to remember that to Fish, Crossmere was James Bond. Instead of running or walking swiftly away, he stays to bluff it out. Later he bluffs Mizen too. And when he eventually visits the police station, he has the officers eating out of his hand with his David Niven charm.

                    Plus, he looks rather defiant in that photograph.
                    Hi Robert,

                    Added to that he was a time traveller. He knew that innocent people, not expecting to ever see a lifeless human being while going about their normal business, will tend to think it is some inanimate object, like a mannequin - or a tarpaulin. Only recently there was a case on tv of a woman who, it turned out, had committed suicide by slashing her neck with a broken bottle. She was found on open ground by someone who thought it was a mannequin. How would a killer in 1888 have had that kind of insight to come out with a lie like that?

                    It's infinitely more likely that this was the completely natural reaction of an innocent person - man or woman [and if Charles Cross had been a Charlotte Cross we wouldn't be having this conversation] - who was simply not expecting this 'object' in the street to be a dead or dying human being, so they saw it as something else to begin with.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      Hi Robert,

                      Added to that he was a time traveller. He knew that innocent people, not expecting to ever see a lifeless human being while going about their normal business, will tend to think it is some inanimate object, like a mannequin - or a tarpaulin. Only recently there was a case on tv of a woman who, it turned out, had committed suicide by slashing her neck with a broken bottle. She was found on open ground by someone who thought it was a mannequin. How would a killer in 1888 have had that kind of insight to come out with a lie like that?

                      It's infinitely more likely that this was the completely natural reaction of an innocent person - man or woman [and if Charles Cross had been a Charlotte Cross we wouldn't be having this conversation] - who was simply not expecting this 'object' in the street to be a dead or dying human being, so they saw it as something else to begin with.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      So, in your former post, you concluded that if Nichls was dead when Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, then he probably was not her killer.

                      And now, you conclude that nobody in 1888 would have been able to think up a lie about how he initially mistook a dead body for a tarpaulin. Impossible - could only be done today, absolutely not back then!

                      This promises to be an interesting day, and I donīt exclude that your mentioning suicide may bring Freud into the discussion when it comes to assessing your efforts.

                      Dear, dear me!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Hi Robert,

                        Added to that he was a time traveller. He knew that innocent people, not expecting to ever see a lifeless human being while going about their normal business, will tend to think it is some inanimate object, like a mannequin - or a tarpaulin. Only recently there was a case on tv of a woman who, it turned out, had committed suicide by slashing her neck with a broken bottle. She was found on open ground by someone who thought it was a mannequin. How would a killer in 1888 have had that kind of insight to come out with a lie like that?

                        It's infinitely more likely that this was the completely natural reaction of an innocent person - man or woman [and if Charles Cross had been a Charlotte Cross we wouldn't be having this conversation] - who was simply not expecting this 'object' in the street to be a dead or dying human being, so they saw it as something else to begin with.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Hi Caz,

                        I'm not sure I follow your first point. Are you suggesting that the chances of finding a dead body on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888 were significantly less than today? I'd have thought they would have been greater. Lots more homeless people giving up the ghost in the street, for instance. And given the comparative inefficiency of the street lighting in 1888, the chances of mistaking a body for something else would also have been more likely.

                        Presumably Lechmere's claim to have mistaken Polly's body for a tarpaulin must have had a degree of plausibility. So the question that arises is why does a man who is in a hurry to get to work stop and make himself even later to investigate an indeterminate dark patch in the street. Claiming that he thought the object might be a tarpaulin, something of value and interest to a carman, could be the truthful response of an innocent man, but it could also be that of a quick-thinking guilty one.

                        Gary

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          What a silly post. "And even then, there could hardly have been an opportunity - proven or possible - for Lechmere to have killed Nichols if she was already dead or dying when he arrived on the scene."

                          Yes, if she was already dead when Lechmere arrived, then he could not have killed her. Heureka!

                          What was that you said about crap....?
                          I said it always falls, eventually, from its own weight.

                          With the amount of crap we've seen on the utterly futile attempts to make Lechmere guilty [and to turn the Barretts into forgers while we're at it], I'm surprised the whole casebook hasn't collapsed under the weight of it all.

                          Can't you see, Fish? If somebody else could have attacked and murdered Nichols before Lechmere came along, that's all the defence needs to show that opportunity can never be proved, never mind the means and motive.

                          By the way, when a student came across Amelie Delagrange, one of serial killer Levi Bellfield's victims, in 2004, he saw what he thought was 'some white plastic sheeting' lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. As he got closer he realised it was a person. Amelie was still breathing at that point, but only just, and she died in hospital less than two hours later. I would hate to think that student might have become the unhealthy object of some armchair detective's attention decades after his death, had Amelie's killer never been identified.

                          Lechmere's 'tarpaulin' shows he was reacting just as other innocent witnesses do when they come across the totally unexpected - a dead or dying human being.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                            "Please donīt be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

                            Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

                            Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

                            You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere."

                            But Fish, I thought you were the one who was arguing that Crossmere was never seriously questioned or suspected by the police. What a turnaround!

                            "Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere?"

                            Indeed.
                            Hi Robert,

                            Isn't Fish's point that the geographical connection of a suspect would (should) have been of nterest to the police? However, it appears Lechmere was never considered a suspect, so his 'connection' was never identified. And in any case, that connection didn't really exist at the time of the Nichols murder, beyond the fact that he was there on the spot at pretty much the time she was killed.

                            (Can I have my Team Lechmere lapel badge now, Fish?)


                            Gary

                            Comment


                            • Hi Fish

                              I'm afraid I have no hat - I had to eat it when confronted with some of the nonsense that you continue to post.

                              Nice of you to be concerned about my exposure to the heat, but such concerns would be better directed at Ed, who has less natural protection.

                              So a man is in the street where a woman has been murdered, and a few minutes later turns down another street where another woman is murdered eight days later. And it doesn't ring a bell with the police - the police who, according to you, are so interested in geography?

                              But I forget - Crossmere charmed the police at his interview. If I might invoke the late Peter Cook : police officers came staggering out of the interview room, gasping "My God, what a nice man!"

                              I'm afraid your theory, Fish, is a load of parasols.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Hi Caz,

                                I'm not sure I follow your first point. Are you suggesting that the chances of finding a dead body on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888 were significantly less than today?
                                Hi Gary,

                                Oh no, I agree with you - probably more chance than today, when you include death by disease, starvation, old age and so on, among those living rough.

                                And given the comparative inefficiency of the street lighting in 1888, the chances of mistaking a body for something else would also have been more likely.
                                Which swings things back the other way. I still don't think dead or dying bodies would have been an everyday sight on the streets, and in darkness you have another reason to see one initially as something else.

                                Presumably Lechmere's claim to have mistaken Polly's body for a tarpaulin must have had a degree of plausibility. So the question that arises is why does a man who is in a hurry to get to work stop and make himself even later to investigate an indeterminate dark patch in the street. Claiming that he thought the object might be a tarpaulin, something of value and interest to a carman, could be the truthful response of an innocent man, but it could also be that of a quick-thinking guilty one.
                                Fair enough, Gary, although I think the truth is more likely to be that Lechmere did think it was a tarpaulin from a certain distance but realised - like that student in 2004 - that it was a woman lying there looking lifeless as he got closer. At that point he must have felt obliged to investigate further, before going on to work.

                                If it was a lie by a quick-thinking killer, it was certainly a belter!

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X